FROM   THE   LIBRARY  OF 
REV.    LOUIS    FITZGERALD    BENSON.   D.  D. 

BEQUEATHED   BY   HIM   TO 

THE   LIBRARY  OF 

PRINCETON  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 


^At      ^^/vu>^    'h^u^ii.    •Z.^^TTf; 


U>/t-(>U^ 


4 


r^^  CHURCH  MUSIC  -QUESTION.       (      \^r\l^^,    1032 

Catholic  Pkksbytekian,  March,  1SS3.]  \"_x  ^ 

THE  CHURCH  MUSIC  QUESTION.* ^--^^^^^^^^Li^L^^ 

IT  is  a  strong  proof  of  the  vitality  of  religious  feeling  in  the  Presby- 
terian Church  that  so  keen  a  contest  rages  over  the  forms  and 
methods  of  worship.  If  the  champions  of  use  and  wont  were  content 
with  a  feeble  and  passive  protest  against  innovations  ;  if  the  younger 
and  reforming  spirits  were  satisfied  to  hint  at  reforms  which  they  had 
not  zeal  enough  to  carry  through,  then  we  might  indeed  say  that  reli- 
gion was  in  a  bad  way.  Life,  though  it  brings  conflict  sometimes,  is 
better  than  deadness,  and  universal  agreement  in  details  is  a  thing  not 
at  all  to  be  desired. 

What  is,  however,  most  earnestly  to  be  desired  is  that  we  should 
approach  this  question  of  worship-music  in  a  large  and  devout  spirit, 
scorning  littlenesses  and  repartee,  striving  to  rise  to  high  ground,  and 
to  discover  the  ultimate  principles  on  which  the  application  of  music  to 
worship  rests. 

It  has  been  said,  for  example,  that  Presbyterians  ought  to  make 
their  services  more  artistic  and  musical,  because  the  young  people  in 
the  towns  are  going  off  to  the  Episcopal  churches,  where  they  can  get 
these  things.  This  seems  to  me  a  very  poor  argument.  If,  as  I  believe, 
it  is  right  that  we  should  freely  admit  art  in  so  far  as  it  serves  the  ends 
of  worship,  then  let  us  advocate  its  introduction  upon  the  distinct  basis 
of  principle,  and  not  because  we  fear  a  stampede. 

Again,  I  have  read  that  organs  ought  to  be  allowed  in  churches 
because  David  played  the  harp  ;  and  I  have  seen  especial  stress  laid  upon 
the  fact  that  one  of  the  earliest  Scottish  psalters  has  on  its  title-page 
a  picture  of  the  Psalmist  outraging  Presbyterian  tradition  by  giving 
the  Psalms  with  instrumental  accompaniment.  All  this  seems  to  me 
mere  trifling.  If  organs  are  lawful  and  expedient,  it  is  not  because 
their  counterparts  were  used  in  the  Temple,  but  because  they  help  to 
kindle  heart  and  voice  in  God's  praise.  If  they  are  unlawful  and  inex- 
pedient, it  is  not  because  Presbyterian  tradition  is  against  them,  but 
because  they  are  not  found  to  aid  our  worship. 

What  is  the  real  apology  and  justification  for  the  use  of  music  in 
worship  ?  This  brings  us  face  to  face  with  the  two  great  divergent 
theories  of  worship — the  Ritual  and  the  Puritan.  The  Ritual  appeals 
to  the  senses,  the  Puritan  to  the  soul.  In  the  one  you  have  the  sight 
of  a  gorgeous  building,  and  an  altar  blazing  with  light  ;  the  sound  of 
bewitching  music  ;  the  smell  of  incense  ;  the  touch  of  holy  water  ;  the 
taste  of  the  wafer.  In  the  other,  in  its  purest  form,  you  have  the 
senses  completely  ignored,  the  forms  of  worship,  such  as  they  are, 
appealing  straight  to  the  intellect  and  the  soul.     The  Ritualist  treats 

*  [The  author  of  this  paper  touches  here  and  there  debateable  ground  ;  but  -we  are  sure 
all  our  readers  will  be  glad  to  know  the  views  of  one  who  has  given  so  much  attention 
to  the  subject,  and  whose  authority  is  so  high.  As  usual,  we  are  ready  to  receive 
remarks  on  the  whole  subject,  or  on  any  part  of  it. — Ed.] 


18G  THE  CHURCH  MUSIC  QUESTION. 

[CATHOLIC  Presbyterian,  March,  18S3. 

man  as  if  he  were  an  animal ;  the  Puritan  treats  him  as  if  he  were  an 
angel.  Unfortunately  for  the  theories  of  each,  man  is  neither  :  he  is  a 
mixture  of  both.  The  fact  that  we  cannot  escape  the  influence  of  the 
senses  ought  to  be  accepted  frankly  by  the  Puritan  ;  while  the  Ritualist 
ought  to  recognise  the  debasing  effect  of  the  sensual  method.  The 
movement  in  the  Puritan  churches,  both  in  Scotland  and  England, 
during  the  last  thirty  years,  has  led  to  the  discovery  that  the  senses 
must  at  least  be  conciliated  if  the  soul  is  to  be  free  for  higher  flights. 

The  ultimate  principle  on  which  the  use  of  music  in  worship  rests 
seems  therefore  to  me  to  be  in  the  hi<?hest  sense  Utilitarian.  Does  it 
quicken  and  deepen  religious  feeling,  and  aid  in  its  expression  ?  That 
is  the  question.  It  is  right  that  our  esthetic  sense  should  be  satisfied  ; 
but  this  is  not  enough.  Nay,  if  any  style  of  music,  vocal  or  instru- 
mental, tends  to  lull  us  into  the  passive  enjoyment  of  sweet  sounds,  it 
is  dangerous  to  worship.  Music  must  help  worship,  and  indeed  can 
help  it,  but  music  must  never  be  a  substitute  for  worship. 

So  much  by  way  of  clearing  the  ground.  What,  at  present,  is  the 
Church  music  question  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  ? 

That  the  singing  should  be  congregational  is  universally  conceded. 
Wherever  I  speak  on  this  subject,  in  England  or  elsewhere,  among 
Churchmen  or  Nonconformists,  I  find  a  hearty  and  even  enthusiastic 
assent  to  my  assertion  that  in  Divine  worship  the  people  ought  to  sing 
themselves.  The  rise  of  musical  taste,  and  the  cheapening  of  good  con- 
certs, will  tend  to  emphasise  rather  than  to  weaken  the  desire  of  the 
congregations  for  plain,  rich,  and  general  common  praise  in  Divine 
service.  We  do  not  want  on  Sunday  in  God's  house  a  feeble  attempt 
to  compete  with  the  concert-rooms  where  we  have  been  in  the  week. 
Congregational  singing  has  a  charm  which  is  quite  distinct  from  that  of 
artistic  music,  and  does  not  conflict  with  it  in  the  least.  It  is  like  the 
sound  of  many  waters,  the  hum  that  rises  from  a  busy  town,  the  strange 
murmur  of  the  forest — perhaps  but  half  musical,  in  the  strict  sense  of  the 
word,  yet  touching  our  hearts  with  a  feeling  that  we  cannot  express  but 
cannot  resist. 

We  talk  of  attracting  people  to  church  by  musical  performances,  but 
in  my  experience  there  is  nothing  so  attractive  as  really  good  congrega- 
tional singing.  People,  I  believe,  would  rather  sing  themselves  than  be 
sung  to. 

Unfortunately,  congregational  singing  is  difficult  to  get,  and  almost  as 
difficult  to  keep  when  you  have  got  it.  The  elements  of  which  it  is 
built  are  perpetually  decaying,  and  must  be  constantly  renewed.  The 
end  is,  however,  worth  the  trouble.  W^ho  has  not  felt  his  spirit  thrilled 
and  melted  by  a  psalm  or  hymn  sung  from  the  heart  by  a  great  congre- 
gation ?  Who  has  not  felt  his  spirit  checked  and  chilled  when,  after  an 
inspiring  sermon,  the  praise  has  fallen  flat  and  coldly  upon  his  ears  ? 
Why  is  not  the  latent  power  of  song  that  exists  in  every  company  of 
worshippers  more  strongly  realised  ?     If  we  could  but  feel  what  a  dcvo- 


CHANTING  AND  CHOIRS.  187 

Catholic  Presbyterian,  March,  18S3. 

tional  force  lies  idle  or  is  imperfectly  developed  in  our  congregations, 
we  should  spare  neither  time  nor  money  to  awaken  it ! 

The  battle  of  psalms  versus  hymns  is  pretty  well  over — ^in  Scotland  at 
least.  What  we  shall  sing  is  fairly  agreed  upon  :  there  remains,  how- 
ever, much  diversity  of  opinion  as  to  how  we  shall  sing,  and  what  musical 
aids  to  our  worship  shall  be  allowed. 

First,  a  word  as  to  prose  chanting.  I  say  nothing  about  singing  a 
hymn  to  a  chant,  which  is  a  favourite  practice  in  Scotland,  because 
this  is  not  chanting  at  all.  Chanting  is  unmetrical,  and  herein  lies  the 
difficulty. 

Why  did  the  Reformers,  who  were  so  anxious  to  popularise  the 
Bible,  abolish  chanting  ?  Surely,  one  would  think,  the  combined 
recitation  of  the  very  words  of  Scripture  would  have  been  their  favourite 
exercise  in  public  worship.  Yet  they  sacrificed  this,  and  put  the 
Psalms  into  diluted  verse.  The  reasons  were  probably  two.  First, 
the  chanting  of  the  Romish  Church  before  the  Reformation  was  no 
doubt  irreverent  in  the  extreme,  and'  it  was  easier  to  suppress  it  than 
to  reform  it.  Second,  the  Reformers  had  felt  the  power  of  song,  and 
song  implies  metre.  The  Reformers  knew  what  they  were  doing.  Just 
as  the  Bible  was  translated  into  English  that  the  people  might  under- 
stand it,  so  the  Psalms  were  put  into  verse  that  the  people  might  sing 
them.  Properly  speaking,  chanting  is  not  singing  ;  it  is  musical 
elocution.  Regular  rhythmical  pulsation,  which  helps  a  congregation 
to  keep  together  in  hymn-tune  or  anthem,  is  wanting  in  the  chant. 
Chanting,  therefore,  must  always  be  more  difficult  than  singing,  and  if 
it  is  really  desired  that  the  congregation,  and  not  the  choir  only,  shall 
join  in  the  exercise,  only  a  few  psalms  or  other  Scripture  passages  and 
only  a  few  chants  must  be  used,  so  that  the  people  may  know  the 
words  and  the  pointing  by  heart.  Good  congregational  chanting  is 
seldom  or  never  to  be  heard.  Choirs  chant,  but  not  often  the  people 
themselves.  Moreover,  nearly  all  the  choir-chanting  we  hear  is  a  dis- 
graceful helter-skelter.  These  undoubted  facts  are  enough  to  make  us 
pause  in  adopting  the  practice  of  prose  chanting.  It  is  a  thing 
delightful  in  theory,  but  far  from  delightful  in  practice. 

Next,  as  to  the  question  of  choir  and  congregation.  The  growth  and 
the  improvement  of  church  choirs  is  the  most  striking  feature  of  the 
last  thirty  years  in  the  history  of  psalmody.  Mr.  AV.  H.  Monk,  the 
editor  of  "  Hymns,  Ancient  and  Modern,"  once  made  this  remark  to  me 
in  conversation :  "  The  better  the  choir-singing  in  any  church,  the 
worse  wiU  be  the  congregational  singing."  I  was  at  first  disposed  to 
dispute  this  assertion,  but  reflection  and  observation  have  convinced 
me,  very  unwillingly,  of  its  truth. 

One  is  reluctant  to  say  a  word  that  might  damp  the  unselfish 
devotion  of  so  many  organists,  choir-masters,  precentors,  and  choir 
members.  How  much  taste,  skill,  and  time  is  spent  in  preparing  choirs 
for  the  psalms,  hymns,  tunes,  and  anthems  of  Divine  service  !     This 


188  THE  CHURCH  MUSIC  QUESTION. 

[Catholic  Pkesbvterian,  March,  1883. 

earnestness  is  the  very  life  and  \io^q  of  psalmody,  if  only  it  can  be  so 
manipulated  as  to  j^romote  the  singing  of  the  congregation  and  not  to 
supersede  it.  We  all  feel  the  importance  of  training  a  choir  well — 
expression  to  enforce  the  words,  pronunciation  to  let  them  be  heard, 
voice  culture  to  secure  a  smooth  and  blended  effect,  so  that  we  may 
give  our  best  to  God.  Yet  what  is  the  common  result  of  securing  these 
excellences  in  a  choir  ?  The  common  result  is  that  the  people  cease  to 
sing.  I  myself,  when  I  am  in  a  church  where  there  is  a  fine  choir, 
feel  my  voice  arrested.  Others  are  silent  round  me,  and  it  seems  pro- 
fane to  disturb  the  balance  of  voice,  and  the  part-song-like  finish  of 
the  music.  I  stand  and  listen,  or  am  content  with  a  gentle  hum  that 
satisfies  my  conscience  without  disturbing  my  neighbours. 

This  is  all  very  undesirable,  and  it  is  an  undoubted  fact  that  the 
musical  revival  of  to-day  has  often  taken  a  wrong  direction,  a  direction 
that  is  injurious  to  congregational  singing.  We  do  not  want  in  our 
services  a  Sunday  concert.  We  want  a  full  and  general  chorus  from 
the  congregation.  Can  we  so  use  choirs  as  to  help  us  to  get  this  ?  May 
they  be  so  organised  as  to  stir  the  congregation,  and  not  to  lull  it  to 
sleep  ? 

I  regard  a  choir  as  indispensable.  The  ideal  of  the  advocate  of  con- 
gregational singing  is,  of  course,  that  the  congregation  should  be  the 
choir.  But  even  in  churches  which  approach  most  nearly  to  this  ideal, 
the  singing  must  always  be  led  by  an  earnest  musical  minority  who 
need  rehearsing,  and  this  is  still  the  virtual  choir.  The  question  of 
where  this  earnest  minority  is  to  sit  during  service  is  a  separate  and 
very  important  one.  I  know  one  church  in  England  where  the  choir 
is  entirely  dispersed  among  the  congregation,  and  where,  as  a  conse- 
quence, the  sound  of  four-part  harmony  comes  from  every  side  in  a  way 
that  is  most  inspiring  and  contagious.  Directly  you  begin  to  concen- 
trate the  best  singers  at  one  end  of  the  church,  the  congregation  begin 
to  shift  their  responsibility.  Few  churches  I  suppose  wiU  adopt  such  a 
radical  plan  as  dispersing  the  whole  of  the  choir  among  the  congrega- 
tion. If  this  cannot  be  done,  then  let  the  majority  of  the  choir  be  dis- 
persed, and  the  larger  the  majority  the  better  wiU  be  the  singing.  A 
choir,  using  the  word  in  this  larger  sense,  is  the  very  life  of  congrega- 
tional singing.  And  the  life  of  the  choir  is  the  elementary  music  class. 
This  is  as  important  as  fresh  fuel  to  a  steam-engine,  and  no  church 
should  be  without  one. 

If  people  will  not  have  a  dispersed  choir,  but  prefer  the  ordinary 
plan  of  a  well-drilled  musical  body  distinct  from  the  congregation,  then 
how  can  such  a  body  be  used  so  as  least  to  hinder  the  congregational 
voice  ?  The  best  way,  I  think,  is  to  have  one  piece  in  each  service 
sung  by  the  choir  alone,  the  congregation  devoutly  listening.  This  will 
satisfy  the  musical  ambition  of  the  choir,  and  we  may  then  demand  that 
the  rest  of  the  service  music  shall  be  thoroughly  plain  and  congregational. 
This  separation  of  the  service  music  into  two  kinds  is  carried  out  in 


EMPLOYMENT  OF  ORGANS.  189 

Catholic  Pkksbytekian,  March,  1883.] 

America.  It  gives  the  choir  work  to  do,  and  keeps  them  together.  I 
do  not  recommend  it,  except  as  an  escape  from  a  greater  evil,  a  sort  of 
safety  valve  which  will  preserve  the  congregational  singing  from  entire 
destruction. 

I  am  very  glad  that  precentors  are  coming  down  from  their  pulpits 
and  turning  themselves  into  choir-masters.  They  can  do  much  better 
work  in  that  way  for  congregational  singing.  The  sound  of  a  tenor 
voice  prominently  singing  the  air  an  octave  below  pitch  is  not  to  my 
taste,  and  if  the  choir  be  trained  to  lead  it  is  not  necessary.  Increased 
attention  is  being  paid  to  the  mating  of  tune  and  hymn  ;  the  utterance 
of  religious  sentiment  through  musical  expression  is  being  more  studied  ; 
and  pronunciation  is  being  attended  to.  These  reforms  have  come 
none  too  quickly,  for  congregations  advance  rapidly  in  musical  taste. 
Let  us  remember  that  culture  in  music,  divorced  from  the  devotional 
spirit,  is  not  only  a  mockery  but  a  failure.  Expression  can  only  be 
musically  true  and  satisfying,  if  it  is  inspired  by  and  naturally  springs 
out  of  the  thoughts  that  are  being  uttered.  Let  our  psalmody  leaders 
try  to  feel  deeply  if  they  would  rise  to  a  higher  musical  level. 

The  church  music  question  of  greatest  magnitude  at  the  present  day 
relates  to  the  organ.  At  the  very  mention  of  the  word  the  mildest 
reader  becomes  a  partisan,  so  that  a  dispassionate  study  of  the  pros  and 
cons  of  the  matter  is  exceedingly  difficult.  The  opponents  of  organs 
have  entrenched  themselves  in  a  citadel,  and  they  seem  to  be  of  opinion 
that  if  their  citadel  falls,  the  whole  order  of  Presbyterian  worship  falls 
too.  Meanwhile,  the  besiegers — armed,  I  suppose,  with  organ  pipes 
instead  of  trumpets — are  doing  their  best  to  bring  down  the  walls.  The 
capitulation  is  only  a  question  of  time. 

Yet,  though  we  may  smile  at  the  heat  and  exaggeration  which  this 
controversy  excites,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  change  from 
unaccompanied  to  accompanied  singing  is  a  serious  and  considerable 
one,  involving  great  possibilities  of  harm  to  what  we  all  so  earnestly 
desire — congregational  singing.  Let  us  discuss  the  matter  on  practical 
grounds,  setting  aside  arguments  about  lawfulness  which  even  religious 
men  feel  to  be  out  of  harmony  with  the  spirit  of  the  times. 

What  is  the  effect  of  an  organ  upon  congregational  singing  ?  I 
think  it  makes  the  act  of  singing  easier,  especially  if  you  are  trying  to 
sing  a  part.  The  notes  you  want  are  in  the  atmosphere.  Even  though 
the  instrument  be  so  softly  played  as  not  to  be  heard,  it  is  felt  in  the 
support  it  gives  to  the  voices.  I  do  not  think  it  can  be  said  to  prevent 
flattening.  Most  of  us  have  had  painful  experience  that  a  congregation 
will  flatten  in  spite  of  an  organ,  and  will  go  on,  verse  after  verse,  at  its 
own  flat  pitch  against  the  instrument  in  a  way  that  tortures  the  ear. 
Flattening  is  not  so  frequent  with  an  organ  as  without,  but  the  organ 
does  not  cure  the  evil. 

It  is  this  function  of  bearing  up  the  voices  that  an  organ  should 
perform.     It  should  never  attempt  to  lead.     Many  people  seem  to  be 


190  THE  CHURCH  MUSIC  QUESTION. 

[Catholic  Presbyterian,  March,  1888. 

of  opinion  that  if  an  organ  is  introduced  to  a  church  the  singing  will 
at  once  improve,  and  need  never  trouble  them  again.  What  folly  ! 
As  well  might  they  expect  to  increase  the  piety  of  a  congregation  by 
building  a  tall  steeple.  Just  as  much  pains  must  be  taken  with  the 
vocal  praise  with  an  organ  as  without.  There  must  be  choir-practices 
and  elementary  singing-classes  and  never-ceasing  work  if  a  full  and 
harmonious  offering  of  praise  is  to  be  maintained. 

So  far  we  have  spoken  of  organs  as  they  should  be  used.  But  how 
are  they  commonly  used  in  England,  where  they  are  universal  and  long 
established  ?  They  are  often  played  so  loudly  that  the  choir  and  con- 
gregation chirp  like  birds  in  a  thunderstorm.  Moreover,  the  organ  is 
a  very  noble  instrument,  which  engrosses  all  the  energies  and  sym- 
pathies of  the  player.  The  organist,  in  ninety-nine  cases  out  of  a 
hundred,  is  the  choir-master,  and  does  whatever  other  musical  work  is 
done  in  the  congregation.  He  is  absorbed  in  his  instrument,  and,  in 
consequence,  choir  training  is  neglected,  and  congregational  training 
never  thought  of.  Singing  becomes  shouting,  the  words  are  drowned 
in  a  muddy  sea  of  organ  tone,  and  the  general  result  is  noise,  not  music. 

The  organ  is  a  good  servant,  but  a  bad  master,  and  the  temper  of 
many  of  the  intelligent  opponents  of  organs  is  this — Let  us  bear  the 
ills  we  have  rather  than  fly  to  others  that  we  know  not  of.  I  can 
assure  you  that  the  example  of  what  has  happened  in  England  is 
enough  to  make  me  feel  much  sympathy  with  this  position.* 

One  word  to  the  opponents  of  organs.  A  mere  negative  attitude  is 
not  enough.  You  must  have  a  positive  policy,  and  show  people  that 
you  can  produce  an  unaccompanied  service  which  satisfies  the  ear  and 
the  devotional  feeling  richly  and  deeply,  falling  like  the  echoes  of  a 
purer  worship  upon  the  weary  and  distracted  spirit. 

The  work  necessary  to  create  and  sustain  a  service  of  this  kind  is  far 
greater  than  for  one  which  is  accompanied.  But  it  is  work  in  aid  of 
devotion,  and  if  your  opposition  to  organs  springs  really  from  your  zeal 
for  purity  of  worship,  here  is  your  opportunity  of  proving  it. 

There  are  three  chief  forces  that  go  to  make  or  mar  the  service  of 
praise — minister,  people,  and  precentor.  The  ministers  have  frequent 
opportunity  of  expressing  their  views  on  psalmody ;  the  opinions  of  the 
congregation  are  echoed  in  the  newspapers  and  in  general  conversation; 
but  the  precentors  have  but  few  opportunities  of  making  themselves 
heard.  Yet  they  have  a  practical  acquaintance  with  the  subject  which 
no  others  have ;  they  are  at  the  front  as  workers ;  they  know  only  too 
well  how  the  ideal  differs  from  the  real,  and  what  struggles  and  disap- 
pointments beset  the  path  of  the  psalmody  worker.  I  enjoy  the  friend- 
ship of  many  Presbyterian  precentors,  and  I  have  thought  that  it  would 
make  this  paper  practical  and  straight-hitting  if  I  could  persuade  some 
of  them  to  contribute  their  opinions  as  to  the  hindrances  they  meet. 

*  For  a  fuller  discussion  of  the  Organ  question,  see  "  Studies  in  Worship  Music," 
by  J.  Spencer  Curwen. 


VIEWS  OF  PRECENTORS.  191 

Cathouc  Presbvterian,  MaifU,  1883.] 

I  have  succeeded  well,    and  shall  give  you  some  passages  from    the 
letters  that  have  come  in  answer  to  my  appeal. 

A  precentor  of  an  important  church  in  a  Scottish  city  writes  : — 

"  First  as  to  ministers.  For  nearly  thirteen  years  I  have  been  leader  of 
psalmody  in  this  church.  During  five  of  these  years  we  had  two  ministers  ;  during 
the  rest  of  the  time,  one.  We  have  a  meeting  for  the  practice  of  psalmody  every 
Friday  evening  (holidays  excepted),  besides  an  elementary  class  every  year,  and 
extra  meetings  before  our  annual  recital  or  concert.  In  all  these  years  we  have 
only  been  visited  twice  by  a  minister  at  our  ordinary  meetings.  My  last  elemen- 
tary class  met  at  seven  o'clock  on  Fridays,  an  hour  fixed  to  suit  young  people 
attending  school.  Our  minister  in  announcing  the  class,  spoke  of  the  benefits  to 
be  derived,  and  urged  parents  to  send  their  children.  He  has  a  family  of  young 
people  himself,  but  not  one  of  them  ever  appeared.  Nearly  every  Sunday,  prayer 
is  ofiered  up  for  preachers.  Sabbath-school  teachers,  tract  distributors,  sessions, 
and  Christian  workers.  Though  I  have  been  a  precentor  for  over  twenty -five 
years  altogether,  I  have  only  twice  heard  the  precentor  prayed  for.  From  their 
practice,  I  have  been  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  most  ministers  regard  psalmody 
as  something  that  may  be  used  or  left  out  as  occasion  requires.  If  the  sermon  is 
short,  we  are  sure  to  have  a  lot  of  singing ;  if  it  is  protracted,  the  last  psalm  or 
hymn  is  shortened  or  left  out.  The  duty  of  sending  a  list  of  the  Sunday's  psalms 
and  hymns  to  the  weekly  practice  is  also  frequently  neglected.  Of  late  we  have 
often  been  called  to  sing  tunes  at  first  sight  in  church." 

After  noticing  that  elders  and  managers  keep  aloof  from  the  associa- 
tion, my  friend  mentions  that  his  Psalmody  Association  has  seldom 
numbered  less  than  100  members,  though  with  a  congregation  of  1200 
members,  besides  adherents,  he  does  not  think  this  a  fair  proportion. 
He  proceeds  : —  . 

"  With  such  an  example  from  those  in  authority,  it  is  hardly  to  be  expected 
that  the  congregation  as  a  whole  will  be  much  interested  in  psalmody.  Few  con- 
gregations, I  believe,  could  muster  a  greater  number  of  sight-singers  than  we,  and 
yet  I  am  sorry  to  say  the  congregational  voice  is  neither  so  strong  nor  so  hearty 
as  it  once  was,  and  should  be.  The  fashion  of  having  an  organ  and  choir  to  '  do ' 
the  singing  seems  to  be  killing  all  sense  of  responsibility  in  this  matter.  How 
else  can  we  account  for  so  many  whom  we  know  to  be  capable,  standing  listless 
and  idle  during  praise] 

"  The  introduction  of  so  many  new  tunes  has  also  injured  congregational 
interest  very  much.  During  1882  I  conducted  the  psalmody  at  99  regular 
church  services,  and  in  these  133  tunes  and  18  pieces  (or  sentences)  were  made 
use  of — too  many  for  any  congregation  to  keep  in  full  song.  The  manner  in 
which  our  hymn  book  is  got  up — every  tune  having  its  o^vn  hymn — compels  the 
use  of  a  great  many  tunes.  The  style  of  tune  now  generally  advocated  is  another 
hindrance.  Most  of  them  are  so  bold,  so  void  of  melody,  so  wooden  that  it  is 
little  wonder  that  people  don't  take  to  them  readily. 

"  Professor  Macfarren  says  that  '  all  lightness,  all  gi-ace,  all  freedom  in  melody, 
result  from  a  judicious  use  of  passing  notes  ;  '  but  passing  notes  have  been 
tabooed  by  the  editors  of  our  collections  of  tunes.  The  alteration  of  harmonies 
has  also  hindered  us  considerably.  When  an  old  and  standard  tune  like  'St.  Paul's' 
or  '  Martyrdom '  is  sung  with  new  harmony,  the  efiect  is  like  the  twenty  pipera 
playing  each  his  favourite  tune  at  the  same  time  and  in  the  same  room,  for  the 
elder  people  sing  the  old  harmonies,  and  the  younger  ones  the  new." 

Another  precentor,  who  confesses  that  he  is  suffering  from  an  attack 
of  melancholy,  writes  ; — 


192  THE  CHURCH  MUSIC  QUESTION. 

[Cathouc  Prksbytekian,  March,  18S8. 
"If  managers,  deacons,  and  elders  of  churches  were  to  expend  upon  choirs 
what  they  seem  happy  to  lay  out  upon  organs,  what  an  overwhelming  change 
would  there  be  in  the  service  of  praise  in  the  house  of  the  Lord  !  Is  it  not  a  fact 
that  such  perishable  things  as  preaching  and  praying  seem,  in  a  large  number  of 
Scotch  churches,  to  be  considered  the  loorship  of  God ;  whilst  the  praise  of  God, 
which  is  everlasting,  which  is  the  connecting  link  between  time  and  eternity,  is 
left  out  in  the  cold — miserably  perishing  for  lack  of  sustenance." 

A  third  precentor  ^vrites  : — 

"  In  choosing  organists  and  conductors  of  psalmody,  too  little  attention  is  paid, 
in  my  opinion,  to  teaching  power.  The  question  of  teaching  is,  indeed,  rarely 
mentioned.  I  think  that  playing  or  singing  should  be  a  secondary  matter  to  the 
power  to  teach  and  to  attract  young  people." 

Here  we  have  a  new  hindrance  brought  forward  by  a  fourth  pre- 
centor : — 

"  The  chief  thing  that  I  have  to  complain  of  is  the  pride  of  some  of  our  people 
in  Scotland.  A  great  many  people,  in  country  districts  especially,  if  they  occupy 
a  social  position  a  very  little  above  the  working  classes,  think  themselves  much 
superior,  and  will  not  associate  with  them.  You  have  no  idea  what  a  hindrance 
this  is  to  the  improvement  of  psalmody  in  Scotland.  Surely  we  should  all  be  in  the 
same  spirit  of  humbleness  when  we  meet  in  church  to  worship  the  same  God  !  " 

Speaking  of  a  tune-book  recently  issued  by  the  section  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church  to  which  he  belongs,  the  same  writer  says  : — 

"  I  do  not  care  for  the  arrangements.  In  a  great  number  of  the  tunes  the 
basses  are  far  too  low  to  be  effective,  and  dissonances  and  double  dissonances  are 
too  frequently  used  for  congi-egational  singing.  In  the  whole,  the  work  of  the 
organist  is  more  apparent  than  that  of  the  choir-master.  I  think  it  is  also  a  mis- 
take to  set  a  tune  to  each  hymn  in  all  cases.  There  are  a  great  many  of  the 
tunes,  set  to  good  hymns,  which  will  never  be  sung,  for  the  reason  that  they  are 
not  worth  the  singing.  Why  not  have  the  leaves  of  the  hymnal  cut,  so  that  the 
choice  of  tune  may  be  free  ? " 

A  fifth  precentor  writes  : — 

"  Some  of  the  ministers  are  very  careless  in  the  selection  of  hymns.  It  is  not 
unusual  for  ministers  who  come  to  our  church  to  preach  to  leave  the  precentor  to 
choose  the  hymns,  saying,  '  Take  any  you  like.'  When  this  is  said  to  me,  I 
venture  to  ask  the  subject  of  the  discourse,  so  that  there  may  be  some  unity  in 
the  service.  Many  of  the  Psalms  I  regard  as  unfit  for  singing.  Our  service  of 
praise  would  be  impi-oved  if  only  Psalms  of  praise,  of  penitence,  or  such  as  contain 
some  expression  of  feeling,  were  used  in  singing.  It  is  the  habit  of  our  minister 
to  begin  at  tlie  fii'st  Psalm  and  go  straight  on  in  regular  order,  no  matter  what 
the  text  may  be.  Thus  we  sometimes  get  a  mournful  sermon  and  a  joyful  Psalm, 
and  vice  versa. 

"  As  to  the  congregation,  I  find  they  will  not  respond  to  the  invitations  given 
from  week  to  week  to  attend  a  psalmody  class.  If  anything  is  to  be  done,  it  must 
bo  with  junior  classes.  I  have  great  faith  in  training  the  young,  but  find  it  difficult 
to  make  the  work  such  as  will  draw  them.  If  a  few  pounds  were  spent  every 
year  on  prizes  for  regular  attendance  and  for  sight-singing,  it  would  bring  them 
out.  Kirk-sessions,  however,  don't  care  to  spend  much  money  on  the  musical 
training  of  the  congregation.  They  think  they  have  discharged  their  duty  when 
they  have  paid  the  precentor's  salary.  I  myself  gave  prizes  one  winter,  consisting 
of  the  Psalms,  hymns,  and  tune-book  which  we  use ;  but  I  could  not  afford  to 
continue  them." 


ENCOURAGEMENT  OF  CHOIRS.  193 

Cathouc  Presbyterian,  March,  1S83.] 

In  opposition  to  what  I  have  read  about  new  tune  books,  a  sixth 
precentor  says  : — 

"  I  find  that  a  large  book  with  plenty  of  variety  and  good  tunes  is  a  great  help 
to  sustaining  of  interest  in  the  psalmody.  The  choir  sings  with  more  life  and 
feeling,  and  this  in  turn  is  caught  by  the  congregation." 

My  last  correspondent  writes  with  much  energy  and  freshness.  He 
says  : —  • 

"  A  much  greater  interest  is  now  taken  by  ministers  in  the  service  of  praise 
than  formerly,  and  it  is  a  common  thing  to  find  them  visiting  the  practice  meet- 
ings and  giving  a  word  of  encouragement.  This  has  a  greater  effect  in  stimulating 
the  young  than  some  are  aware  of. 

"  Less  progress  has,  I  think,  been  made  by  sessions  than  by  ministers  in  recog- 
nising the  importance  of  good  congregational  singing.  Instead  of  encouraging 
their  precentors  and  choirs,  they  seem  to  think  that  one  of  their  special  duties  is 
to  keep  a  watchful  eye  over  them,  and  to  miss  no  opportunity  of  putting  their 
foot  upon  them.  This,  I  believe,  along  with  the  natural  youthful  unreasonable- 
ness of  choirs,  is  one  fruitful  source  of  what  are  termed  choir  '  rows.' 

"  For  example,  some  matter  of  detail  has  to  be  arranged  about  choir  seats, 
change  of  practising  night,  a  soiree,  or  some  other  minor  affair.  The  matter  is 
referred  to  at  a  meeting  of  session,  and  after  conversation  the  clerk  is  requested 
to  drop  the  precentor  a  note,  asking  him  to  do  so  and  so.  The  clerk  then  writes 
a  letter,  using  the  most  irritating  phraseology  which  accident  or  design  could 
have  suggested  to  him.  The  precentor  feels  the  edge  of  the  censorial  knife,  and 
at  the  next  meeting  of  the  choir  reads  the  letter  with  a  tone  of  injured  innocence. 
This  letter  is  hai-dly  finished  when  several  members  are  on  their  feet,  bursting 
with  eloquence,  and  in  the  space  of  five  minutes  the  explosive  powers  of  the 
choir  are  fully  developed.  A  strike  is  at  once  agreed  upon,  but  as  several 
members  are  absent,  they  must  be  seen  and  prevented  from  going  to  the  choir 
seats  on  Sabbath.  This  necessitates  a  recapitulation  of  the  affair  with  '  inter- 
lude '  and  '  episode.'  On  Sabbath  there  is  no  choir.  On  Monday  the  minister 
calls  them  together  and  lectures  them.  Some  eloquent  member  replies,  giving 
his  version,  but  the  story  has  taken  such  dimensions,  like  the  snowball  that 
gathers  with  i-oUing,  that  the  minister  can  scarcely  recognise  it,  though  he 
presided  at  the  meeting  where  it  originated.  The  tangled  skein  takes  a  long 
time  to  unravel,  and  some  of  the  knots  are  so  obstinate  as  to  require  cutting. 
The  almost  invariable  result  of  these  affairs  is  that  a  torrent  of  wrath  descends 
on  the  head  of  the  precentor  from  all  sides,  and  he  is  made  the  scapegoat  who 
has  to  carry  the  troubles,  or  swallow  them  as  he  pleases.  If  members  of  session 
would  only  remember  that  they  themselves  were  once  guilty  of  the  offence  of 
being  young,  many  troubles  would  be  avoided. 

"The  greatest  complaint  against  congregations  is,  I  believe,  apathy.  They 
want  stirring  up.  This  can  be  done  in  endless  ways.  Your  lectures,  for 
instance,  stir  up  from  the  centre  outward,  acting  on  those  to  whom  you  speak. 
They,  in  turn,  stir  up  their  pupils  and  the  outside  world.  Ministers  interested 
in  the  service  of  praise  may  in  like  manner  stir  up  their  elders,  and  the  elders 
the  people.  Personally  I  hold  a  somewhat  different  theory,  and  practise  it.  It 
may  be  called  stirring  up  from  the  outside  inward.  I  try  to  gain  the  hearts  of 
the  children  and  young  people,  believing  that  they  rule  the  mothers,  that  the 
mothers  rule  the  fathers,  and  the  fathers  the  Church.  A  plan  at  present  on 
trial  in  the  church  to  which  I  belong  is  to  have  occasional  joint-meetings  of  the 
Psalmody  Association,  Literary  Association,  and  Bible  Class.  This  really 
includes  all  the  young  of  the  congregation  above  Sabbath-school  age.  The  first 
combined  meeting  is  a  lecture  on  Musical  History,  with  illustrations.  This  jjlan 
will  act  and  react.  The  Psalmody  Association  will  confer  pleasure  and  profit  on 
the  others,  and  will  draw  sympathy  from  them. 

VOL.  IX. NO.  LI.  O 


194  PROGRESS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

[Catholic  rRESBYTERUN,  March,  1883. 

"  One  complaint  against  congregations  is  that  they  consider  precentors  their 
special  property,  and  imagine  they  have  a  right  to  criticise  them  musically,  men- 
tally, socially,  (fee.  A  chapter  on  this  might  be  amusing,  but  I  do  not  know  that 
it  would  bear  much  upon  the  '  Church  Music  Question.' 

"  A  few  months  ago  the  Psalmody  Committee  of  the  General  Assembly  of  our 
Church  issued  a  circular  to  ministers  containing  a  number  of  questions  with  the 
object  of  guiding  them  in  the  issue  of  a  new  psalter.  Our  minister  asked  me  to 
reply  in  his  name,  which  I  did.  I  also  took  tha  liberty  of  writing  to  the  Com- 
mittee that  a  rich  mine  of  musical  experience  and  knowledge  was  neglected  by 
them  when  they  took  no  counsel  of  their  precentors.  This  is  a  subject  on  which 
many  able  precentors  have  just  cause  of  complaint. 

"  The  want  of  uniformity  in  the  tune-books  of  the  Presbyterian  Churches  is 
very  much  to  be  deplored.  I  remember  when  the  '  Scottish  Psalmody '  was  used 
in  all  the  Presbyterian  Churches.  One  edition,  the  most  in  use,  costing  only  six- 
pence, was  virtually  a  pocket-book.  Scores  of  young  men  can-ied  it  in  their 
pockets  all  the  year  round,  and  used  it  on  all  kinds  of  occasions.  To  do  the 
same  thing  now,  one  would  have  to  carry  a  wallet. 

"  Finally  :  let  ministers  acquaint  themselves  as  thoroughly  as  possible  with  the 
subject.  Let  church  sessions  endeavour  to  look  at  the  subject  in  a  reasonable 
way,  and  act  kindly  and  judiciously  towards  the  young.  Let  members  of  choirs 
control  their  impetuosity  when  their  seniors  differ  from  them.  Let  precentors 
leave  no  stone  unturned  to  make  themselves  masters  of  their  work,  so  that  they 
may  stand  head  and  shoulders  above  their  classes.  And  let  us  all  be  of  one  mind 
in  remembering  that  the  work  is  the  Lord's." 

I  adopt  tiiis  practical  summary  as  my  own,  and  close  this  article 
with  a  hearty  "  Amen  "  to  its  words. 

J.  Spencer  Curwen. 


SsmpDstum, 


PROGRESS  IN  THEOLOGY. 

No.  III. 

IN  previous  articles  for  this  symposium,  Principal  Tulloch  has  argued 
the  possibility  of  progress  in  theology  from  the  nature  of  human 
knowledge,  whatever  the  subject-matter  of  knowledge  may  be  ;  and  Dr. 
Hodge  admits  that  theology,  in  a  general  sense,  as  the  sum-total  of  all 
that  at  any  time  may  be  known  of  God,  is  a  progressive  loiowledge  ; 
but  he  affirms  that  theology,  in  the  narrower  sense  of  the  essential 
Christian  doctrines,  has  already  been  substantially  determined.  "  Theo- 
logy, in  the  sense  of  the  sum  of  saving  doctrines  common  to  the 
Reformation  and  modern  Evangelical  Churches,  will  not  make  progress 
in  the  future." 

The  phrase  "  sum  of  saving  doctrines "  indicates  a  conception  of 
Christianity  from  which  theology  might  make  progress  in  the  future. 
For  this  phrase  "  saving  doctrines  "  is  one  of  several  common  expres- 


INDIA.  315 

Catholic  Presbyterian,  April,  1883.] 
The  class  referred  to,  now  very  numerous,  it  seems  hai-d  to  reach.  Separated  to 
some  extent  from  their  own  people,  and  yet  kept  at  arm's  length  by  Europeans, 
they  are  not  in  a  position  likely  to  minister  to  sweetness  of  temper.  One  remark 
painfully  struck  us.  It  was  said  or  hinted  that  these  people  were  not  expected 
to  make  their  appearance  in  the  English  Churches.  There  are  other  castes 
besides  those  of  Hindoos.  The  Baboos  of  the  smaller  towns — where,  as  well  as 
in  the  presidential  capitals,  they  are  numerous — are  very  accessible  to  Christian 
influence. 

3.  Another  subject  was  the  "  Self-support  and  Self-propagation  of  the  Native 
Church."  Things  are  greatly  more  advanced  in  this  respect  than  many 
have  any  notion  of.  Twenty  years  ago  the  Tinnevelly  Mission  was  carried  on 
by  sixteen  European  missionaries.  Now  it  has  only  four  Europeans,  one  of 
them  the  bishop,  and  the  other  three  engaged  in  educational  work.  The 
pastoral  work  is  in  the  hands  of  natives,  and  the  native  contributions 
amount  to  £2500  a-year.  "  Our  Tamil  Missions,"  said  a  native  C.  M. 
pastor,  "  have  made  much  progress  in  self-rule  and  some  advance  in  Church 
extension.  The  native  council  is  bona  fide — the  chairman,  secretary,  and 
members  all  being  natives."  The  C.  M.  S.  Santhal  converts  build  their 
own  chapels  and  pay  more  than  half  the  stipends  of  the  native  clergy.  We 
have  seen  that  the  Gossner  Mission  is  largely  wrought  by  native  pastors  and 
catechists ;  they  get  half  their  support  from  the  native  congregations.  "  My 
first  mission  field,"  said  the  Rev.  M.  Timpany  of  the  Canadian  Baptist  Mission, 
"  was  Nellore.  At  the  end  of  six  years  there  were  between  700  and  800  com- 
municants ;  and  ten  village  school-house  chapels  were  completed,  and  twelve  • 
more  were  a-building.  The  only  outside  help  the  people  got  was  from  the 
central  church,  which  gave  to  each  erection  a  door,  a  window,  and  five  rupees." 
"  I  know,"  said  Mr.  Timpany,  "  that  Indian  Christians  will  give  out  of  their 
poverty."  In  Ceylon,  the  American  Board  of  Foreign  Missions  has  thirteen 
native  churches,  all  but  three  of  them  self-supporting.  Their  1000  members 
not  merely  support  their  own  ministers  in  a  suitable  manner,  but  they  contribute 
£70  a  year  for  native  missions.  A  native  Ceylonese  having  a  humble  Govern- 
ment appointment,  will  contribute  an  annual  sum,  at  the  thought  of  which  a 
broad-acred  laird  would  not  long  ago  have  grown  pale,  and  which  would  have 
startled  even  a  stiff  well-to-do  Seceder  accustomed  to  put  his  hand  in  his  pocket. 

We  shall  briefly  allude  to  the  papers  on  Wovian^s  Work  in  the  Indian  Mission- 
field.  These — all  by  ladies — were  not  the  least  notable.  The  Eurasian  and 
Foreign  Female  Mission  agents  have  increased  by  more  than  a  fourth,  and  the 
Zenana  pupils  have  grown  from  2000  to  9000.  More  remarkable  still,  a  thousand 
more  native  Christian  females  are  in  the  Mission-field  in  1881  than  in  1871. 
Everything  indicates  still  greater  progress  in  the  coming  years. 

It  was  said  at  the  close  of  the  Conference  that  the  harvest  time  in  India 
is  near.  It  may  be  so.  Certainly  the  progress  made  is  full  of  encourage- 
ment. If  it  be  the  case,  as  is  maintained,  that  Hinduism,  instead  of  tottering 
to  its  fall,  is  actively  and  successfully  propagandist,  that  may  only  mean 
dread  of  Christianity,  or  it  may  be  the  result  of  that  vitalising  influence 
which  Christianity  communicates  even  to  its  enemies.  If  300,000  of 
the  converts  are  in  the  south  of  India,  and  the  great  movements  are  not 
in  the  great  centres  of  Brahminism,  this  may  signify  that,  as  of  old,  it  is 
God's  purpose,  by  the  things  which  are  not,  to  bring  to  nought  the  things 
which  are  ;  not  that  the  weak  are  stronger  than  the  strong,  but  that 
the  weak  are  more  recipient  of  the  mightiest  of  all  forces  which  have 
entered  into  human  history. 

J. 


316  OPEF  COUNCIL. 

[CATHOUC  Pkesb^terian,  April,  1883. 


©pen  Council 


CHURCH    MUSIC    QUESTION. 

To  the  Editor  of  "  The  Catholic  Presbyterian." 

Sir, — In  your  note  on  Mr.  Curwen's  paper,  "  the  Church  Music  Question,"  you 
express  a  "  readiness  to  receive  remarks  on  any  part  of  the  subject." 

We  do  not  question  Mr.  Curwen's  high  authority,  or  the  importance  of  most  of 
his  statements  ;  but  he  overlooks  the  cause  of  "  the  contest,"  among  Presbyterians, 
about  "  Church  music."  The  contest  does  not  regard  the  utility  of  instruments, 
but  their  lawfulness.  "  The  ultimate  principle  "  with  them  is  not  utilitarian,  but 
Biblical — the  question  is  not  so  much  whether  instruments  are  helpful  as  whether 
they  are  Scriptural  in  the  present  dispensation. 

The  Presbyterial  "principle"  is  that  the  worship  of  God  should  be  "pure." 
It  forbids  "  the  approving  of  any  religious  worship  not  instituted  by  God," 
though  "  under  the  title  of  antiquity,  custom,  devotion,  good  intent,  or  any 
other  pretence  whatsoever."  Such  being  the  "  principle,"  the  first  question  must 
be,  is  instrumental  help  in  praise  "instituted  by  God" — is  it  "agreeable  to  His 
will "  as  revealed  in  His  Word  ] 

It  is  said  "  organs  help  to  kindle  heart  and  voice  in  God's  praise."  Some, 
however,  take  a  dijHferent  view.  It  is  said  that  "even  i-eligious  men  feel  the 
argument  about  lawfulness  to  be  out  of  harmony  with  the  spirit  of  the  times." 
The  reply  is  "the  spirit  of  the  times,  the  spirit  of  the  world,  or  of  the  age,  is  the 
spirit  of  the  natural  mind  at  enmity  with  God" — "  the  wisdom  of  the  world  is 
foolishness  with  God  " — and  "  because  the  world  by  wisdom  knew  not  God."  He 
has  given  us  a  revelation  of  His  will  resting  upon  sheer  authority.  From  this 
there  can  be  no  appeal. 

The  Presbyterians  of  the  second  Reformation,  Puritans  and  Covenanters,  did 
not  consider  "  praise-worship  "  with  the  same  thoroughness  of  care  as  they  did 
"the  doctrine,  discipline,  and  government"  of  the  Church;  and  as  instrumental 
music  had  been  abused  by  Popery  and  Prelacy,  and  is  not  mentioned  in  connec- 
tion with  New  Testament  worship,  they  laid  the  organ  aside  altogether. 

We  long  held  the  traditional  view  of  the  non-lawfulness  of  organs  in  New 
Testament  worship,  and  therefore  we  sympathise  with  those  who  still  hold  it. 
Many  years  ago,  however,  we  were  led  to  examine  what  the  Word  says  on  infant 
Church  membership,  and  the  result  of  our  inquiry  led  to  a  change  of  stand-point 
from  which  to  view  "the  Church  music  question." 

Our  position  is  that  the  Church  of  God  is  one  Church,  though  having  passed 
through  different  dispensations  ;  that  the  Word  of  God  is  one  book,  though  in  two 
volumes ;  and  that  everything  not  Levitical  or  National  in  the  one  dispensation 
is  lawful  in  the  other,  unless  the  Word  declare  that  it  is  abolished. 

What  time  instruments  wei-e  first  used  in  the  worship  of  God  we  do  not  deter- 
mine. We  know  that  "  the  harp  and  organ "  were  known  as  instruments  of 
music  long  before  the  Flood ;  though,  in  the  brief  sketch  by  Moses,  we  do  not 
read  that  they  were  then  used  in  leading  the  praise-worship  of  God.  We  read  in 
Job  of  "  the  harp  and  the  organ  "  as  instruments  of  music,  but  we  do  not  read  that 
they  were  used  by  him  in  praise-worship  of  God.  We  do,  however,  know  that 
instruments  were  used  in  leading  the  praise  of  God  on  the  -wilderness  side  of  the 
Red  Sea,  when  Moses  and  the  children  of  Israel  "  sang  a  song"  of  pr4ise  "  to  the 
Lord ;"  and  "  Miriam  took  a  timbrel  in  her  hand,  and  all  the  women  went  out 
after  her  with  timbrels  .  .  .  and  answered,  sing  ye  to  the  Lord  for  He  hath 
triumphed  gloriously."  God  accepted  this  worship  of  His  people.  It  was  non- 
Levitical,  being  prior  to  the  call  of  Aaron. 


CHURCH  MUSIC  QUESTION.  317 

CATHOLIC  Presbyterian,  April,  18S3.] 

The  jjraise-worship  of  those  whom  Saul  met,  going  up  to  Bethel,  "  prophesying" 
— praising  God  in  song — "  with  the  psaltery,  the  tabret,  the  pipe,  and  the  harp," 
was  not  connected  with  the  Levitical  ceremonial,  but  was  "  a  service  of  song " 
common  to  all  ages  of  the  Church.  The  psalmody  of  David  was  non-Levitical. 
"  The  psalteries,  harps,  and  cymbals  "  were  for  the  service  of  song  in  the  house 
of  the  Lord — not  connected  with  sacrifice,  but  praise.  "  They  prophesied  with 
the  harp  " — they  praised  God  in  song  with  the  hai'p.  The  New  Testament  says 
nothing  leading  us  to  suppose  that  instruments  are  unlawful  under  the  present 
dispensation ;  and  as  the  Church  is  one  and  the  Word  one,  the  silence  of  the 
New  Testament  does  not  set  them  aside. 

Taking  our  stand  on  the  principle  of  the  oneness  of  the  Church  under  all 
dispensations,  and  the  oneness  of  the  "Word,  though  of  many  parts,  and  in  two 
volumes,  we  can  maintain  the  ordinances  of  the  Sabbath,  of  degrees  for  marriage, 
of  infant  Church  membership,  of  the  tenth  of  substance  for  the  treasury,  of 
magistracy,  and  of  instrumental  help  in  the  praise-worship  of  God.  On  no  other 
principle  can  we  fully  maintain  any  of  these ;  but  holding  this  principle  we  can 
maintain  them  all  and  then  accept  all  the  instruction  that  Mr.  Curwen  gives  us 
on  "  the  Church  Music  Question." 

Joseph  Fisher,  D.D. 

37  West  Square,  London,  S.E. 


Sir, — It  was  with  much  satisfaction  that  I  read  the  paper  of  Mr.  Curwen  in 
your  last  number.  The  question  has  many  aspects  ;  but  perhaps  no  more  pleasing 
one  could  have  been  chosen  than  that  in  which  it  has  been  introduced 
to  your  readers.  The  topic  to  which  he  has  specially  addressed  himself  he 
terms  "the  application  of  music  to  worship,"  or  more  shortly,  "  worship-music," 
and  beyond  this  theme  he  merely  "touches"  what  may  be  called  "  debateable 
ground."  It  is  proper  that  this  should  be  kept  in  view,  for  otherwise  there 
might  have  been  complaint  that  in  the  discussion  of  this  great  question  there 
should  be  no  reference  to  Divine  revelation,  or  specially  to  that  worship  of  which 
praise  is  but  the  expression,  and  music  a  mere  accident  or  circumstance. 

Taking  into  consideration,  therefore,  the  low  platform  from  which  the  ques- 
tion has  been  approached,  Mr.  Curwen's  paper  cannot  be  regarded  otherwise  than 
as  interesting  and  instructive.  He  states  the  case  as  between  the  Ritualist  and 
the  Puritan  with  so  much  fairness  and  geniality,  and  altogether  manifests  so 
much  of  the  in\partial%nusical  critic,  that,  save  for  an  occasional  expression  of 
his  own  belief,  it  would  be  difficult  to  make  out  to  which  side  his  arguments, 
if  not  his  sympathies,  lean.  For  example,  he  scouts  the  idea  of  retaining  the 
young  people  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  their  communion  by  making  the 
"services  more  artistic  and  musical,"  without  its  being  shown  that  "it  is  right 
freely  to  admit  art  in  so  far  as  it  serves  the  ends  of  worship."  And,  again,  that 
organs  must  be  considered  "  lawful  and  expedient,  not  because  their  counterparts 
were  used  in  the  Temple,  but  because  they  help  to  kindle  heart  and  voice  in  God's 
praise."  Speaking  of  "  the  two  great  divergent  theories  of  worship — the  Ritual 
and  the  Puritan,"  he  says,  "  the  Ritual  appeals  to  the  senses,  the  Puritan  to  the 
soul."  And  no  one  at  all  interested  in  this  discussion  could  wish  for  a  better 
description  of  the  rival  theories  than  he  gives.  "  In  the  one  you  have  the  sight  of 
a  gorgeous  building  and  an  altar  blazing  with  light,  the  sowkc?  of  bewitching  music, 
the  smell  of  incense,  the  touch  of  holy  water,  the  taste  of  the  wafer.  In  the  other,  in 
its  purest  form,  you  have  the  senses  completely  ignored,  the  forms  of  worship,  such 
as  they  are,  appealing  straight  to  the  intellect  and  the  soul."  This  utterance  of 
Mr.  Curwen  is,  in  my  opinion,  pre-eminently  instructive.  It  not  only  describes 
the  two  opposite  theories,  but  it  depicts  the  two  systems  in  their  practical 
operation.  Undesignedly  it  may  be,  but  all  the  more  forcibly,  he  exhibits  not 
the  nature  only  but  the  tendency  of  Ritualism,  and  he  would  be  a  prophet 
indeed  who  could  say  lohen  the  excesses  of  the  one  system  could  be  checked  and 


318  OPEN  COUNCIL. 

(CATHOtic  Pkesbvterian,  April,  1883. 
kept  within  bounds  were  tbe  principle  of  the  other  system  abandoned.     "  It  needs 
but  a  little,"  says  Mr.  Spurgeon,  "to  degrade  the  Christian  into  a  Ritualist,  and 
still  less  to  turn  the  Ritualist  into  a  Romanist." 

This  leads  me  to  speak  of  principles.  Mr.  Curwen  again  and  again  uses  the 
word,  either  in  the  singular  or  the  plural  number.  He  speaks  of  the  desirable- 
ness of  "  striving  to  discover  the  ultimate  principles  on  which  the  application  of 
music  to  worship  rests,"  of  "  advocating  the  introduction  of  art,"  in  so  far  as 
it  serves  the  ends  of  worship,  "  upon  the  distinct  basis  of  principle."  And, 
again,  "  the  ultimate  principle  on  which  the  use  of  music  in  worship  rests 
seems  ...  to  be  in  the  highest  sense  utilitarian."  On  reading  this  conclusion, 
we  bad  to  remind  ourselves  of  the  precise  topic  which  Mr.  Curwen  under- 
took to  discuss ;  but,  in  its  wider  issues,  the  question  must  be  discussed  with 
respect  primarily  to  the  revealed  will  of  God,  in  the  interpretation  of  which 
there  ought  to  be  no  such  thing  as  a  *'  utilitarian  principle."  "  God,"  says 
Calvin,  "  in  vindicating  His  own  right,  first  proclaims  that  He  is  a  jealous  God, 
and  will  be  a  stern  avenger  if  He  is  confounded  with  any  false  god  ;  and  there- 
after defines  what  due  worship  is,  in  order  that  the  human  race  may  be  kept  in 
obedience."  And  regarding  the  necessity  for  the  revelation  of  God's  will,  Isaac 
Taylor  remarks — "  It  is  just  the  relation  of  the  infinite  to  the  finite  that  must  be 
expected  to  form  the  peculiar  topics  of  Divine  revelation."  The  discussion 
therefore  should  embrace  such  points  as  these — the  nature  of  Divine  worship  ; 
the  parts  or  divisions  of  it  ;  the  Divine  appointment  of  those  parts,  and  the 
changes  therein  sanctioned  in  the  Scriptures ;  more  especially  the  subject  of 
Divine  praise,  its  nature,  the  medium  of  it,  and  the  efiect  upon  that  medium 
consequent  on  the  change  of  dispensation. 

Mr.  Curwen  has  "touched"  some  of  this  "  higher  ground,"  and  I  would  use 
the  space  yet  available  to  me  in  discussing  one  or  two  of  the  points  to  which  he 
refers.  A  large  question  is  opened  up  by  an  expression  he  uses  more  than  once, 
"  the  ends  of  worship."  He  gives  no  distinct  statement  as  to  what  he  considers 
these  "  ends  "  to  be,  but  we  may  gather  this,  inferentially  at  least,  from  some  of 
his  expressions.  He  says,  for  instance,  that  the  use  of  instruments  may  "  help 
to  kindle  heart  and  voice  in  God's  praise."  Also  that  music  in  worship,  to  be 
right  and  useful,  "  must  quicken  and  deepen  religious  feeling,  and  aid  in  its  expres- 
sion ;  "  further,  that  "  any  style  of  music,  vocal  or  instrumental,  which  tends  to 
lull  us  into  the  passive  enjoyment  of  sweet  sounds,  is  dangerous  to  worship." 
"  Music,"  he  adds,  "  must  help  worship,  and  indeed  can  belp  it,  but  music  must 
never  be  a  substitute  for  worship."  The  same  point  is  touched  in  a  reference  he 
makes  to  the  effect  of  bad  congregational  singing.  "  Who  has  not  felt  his  spirit 
checked,"  doubtless  in  the  "higher  flights"  of  the  soul,  of  which  he  had 
previously  spoken,  "and  chilled 'when,  after  an  inspiring  sermon,  the  praise  has 
fallen  flat  and  coldly  upon  his  ears  ? "  And  in  another  connection  he  says,  "  Let 
us  remember  that  culture  in  music,  divorced  from  the  devotional  spirit,  is  not  only 
a  mockery,  but  a  failure." 

From  all  this,  an  idea  may  be  formed  of  what  Mr.  Curwen  means  by  "the  ends  of 
worship,"  presuming  that  he  had  chiefly  in  view  that  part  of  it  which  is  called  praise. 
It  were  well,  however,  that  in  discussing  the  question  in  hand,  there  should  be 
no  dubiety  in  this  respect.  Theologians,  I  find,  in  treating  of  praise,  always 
regard  it  as  a  part  of  prayer  ;  partaking  more  or  less  of  adoration,  confession  (in 
the  sense  of  acknowledging  God's  dealings  both  in  providence  and  in. grace),  and 
thanksgiving.  Reference  is  made  to  the  Psalms  and  other  Scripture  tributes  of 
praise  as  combining  all  these  elements.  This  aspect  of  praise  should  throw  no 
little  light  upon  the  discussion  of  the  present  question.  If  praise  be  a  part  of 
prayer  in  its  wider  sense,  then  whatever  may  be  predicated  of  the  one  exercise,  in 
its  one  phase,  may  be  predicated  of  the  other.  We  attach  to  the  exercise  of 
prayer,  holy  awe  or  reverence,  humility,  devotion,  a  consciousness  of  dealing  with 
Him  who  is  expressly  designated  the  hearer  of  prayer,  and  into  whose  presence 
we  have  immediate  access  through  the  mediation  of  Christ,  and  in  praying  we  are 


CHURCH  MUSIC  QUESTION.  319 

Catholic  Presbyterian,  April,  1883.] 
taught  and  helped  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  no  begging  of  the  question,  therefore, 
to  assert  that  until  praise  can  be  shown  to  differ  essentially  from  prayer,  no  greater 
freedom  can  be  allowed  in  I'egard  to  the  exercise  of  the  one  duty  than  of  the 
other.  Prayer  is  a  transaction  of  the  soul  with  God  ;  so  is  praise.  Prayer  must 
be  exercised  under  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  so  ought  praise.  Prayer  is 
accepted  only  in  and  through  the  Great  Mediator,  so  is  praise.  As,  in  prayer, 
there  can  be  no  worshipping  of  God  through  the  medium  of  images  and  pictures  ; 
so  in  praise,  no  other  medium  is  admissible  than  that  of  "heart  and  voice." 

Mr.  Curwen  refers  again  and  again  to  "  the  influence  of  the  senses,"  a  point 
intimately  connected  with  that  just  noticed.  Here,  too,  there  is  a  lack  of 
precision.  Speaking  of  the  Ritualist  and  the  Puritan  forms  of  worship,  he  describes 
the  one  as  ai)pealing  to  "the  senses,"  and  the  other  to  "  the  soul."  Both  forms 
it  seems  are  defective,  but  defective  only  because  each  is  extreme ;  for  "  the 
senses  must  at  least  be  conciliated,  if  the  soul  is  to  be  set  free  for  higher  flights." 
Of  good  congregational  singing  he  says,  "  It  is  like  the  sound  of  many  waters,  the 
hum  that  rises  from  a  busy  town,  the  strange  murmur  of  the  forest,  perhaps  but 
half  musical,  yet  touching  our  hearts  with  a  feeling  that  we  cannot  express  but 
cannot  resist."  There  is  much  more  to  the  same  effect — all,  or  mostly  all,  of  the 
subjective  kind.  We  miss  any  reference,  or  have  but  slight  reference,  to  the 
objective  aspect  of  praise  worship.  In  other  words,  while  we  have  a  good  deal 
said  about  the  senses  and  the  sensuous,  we  miss  any  direct  allusion  to  that  faith 
"  without  which  it  is  impossible  to  please  God."  This  is  surely  an  oversight,  even 
in  discussing  the  minor  point  of  "  music-worship."  Some  more  direct  reference 
might  have  been  made  to  this  indispensable  accompaniment  of  all  acceptable 
worship — faith.  Now,  with  our  apprehension  of  what  faith  in  such  a  connection 
is,  we  cannot  conceive  how  the  soul  can  be  "  set  free  for  higher  flights  " — which  we 
take  to  mean  for  communion  with  God,  the  gi'eat  object  of  all  true  worship — "  by 
the  senses  being  conciliated."  This  result  we  believe  to  be  produced  by  the 
exercise  of  faith  ;  but  here  it  is  ascribed  to  the  effect  of  music  operating  upon  the 
senses — faith  giving  place  to  sense  instead  of  triumphing  over  it.  The  music  that 
effects  this  important  result  must  be  of  the  instrumental  kind ;  for  we  are  told 
that  "the  discovery"  has  been  made  "during  the  last  thirty  years."  In 
conti-ast  to  this  teaching,  let  us  listen  to  the  testimony  of  the  Puritan  Owen.  "  It 
is  admitted  that  the  exercise  of  saving  faith — of  that  faith  which  is  the  fruit  of 
the  Spirit,  and  produces  regeneration — is  attended  by  feelings  appropriate  to  its 
object ;  but  this  is  to  be  referred  to  the  nature  of  the  object.  If  we  believe  a 
good  report,  the  effect  is  joy  ;  the  perception  of  beauty  produces  delight, — of  moral 
excellence,  a  glow  of  approbation  ;  of  spii-itual  things,  in  many  cases  a  joy 
unspeakable  and  full  of  glory."  It  seems  to  have  been  John  Owen's  opinion  that 
it  is  the  exercise  of  faith  that  sets  "  the  soul  free  for  higher  flights."  But  he  did 
not  ignore  the  senses.  In  another  place  he  says,  "  the  truths  of  revelation, 
though  not  the  ground  of  our  faith,  do  powerfully  and  rightly  affect  our  feelings." 
We  had  marked  off  for  quotation  some  passages  in  Canon  Liddon's  Elements  of 
Religion,  in  which  the  relations  of  faith  to  feeling,  and  generally  the  emotional 
in  religion,  are  discussed ;  but  we  can  only  refer  to  the  volume. 

Another  point  touched  by  Mr.  Curwen,  and  whicli  more  immediately  concerns 
his  special  topic,  is  that  of  "freely  admitting  art"  into  public  worship;  or,  as  he 
otherwise  puts  it,  "satisfying  our  aesthetic  sense."  This  we  take  to  refer  to  the 
highest  development  of  vocal  music  by  the  aid  of  instrumental  accompaniments. 
Addressing  the  opponents  of  organs  in  churches,  he  says,  "A  negative  attitude  is 
not  enough.  You  must  have  a  positive  policy,  and  show  people  that  you  can 
produce  an  unaccompanied  service  which  satisfies  the  ear  and  the  devotional 
feeling  richly  and  deeply,  fal'ing  like  the  echoes  of  a  purer  worship  upon  the 
weary  and  distracted  spii'it."  This  is  the  well-expressed  utterance  of  a  musical 
critic,  but  certainly  the  criticism  of  music  apart  from  worship  ;  and  it  induces  the 
query,  if  it  is  not  a  mistake  and  a  misnomer  to  speak  thus  of  worship-music  %  In 
so  far  as  Divine  worship  is  concerned,  the  exercise  referred  to  is  praise — a  word 


320  OPEN  COUNCIL. 

[Cathouc  Presbyterux,  April,  188S. 
which  Mr.  Curwen  seldom  uses,  always  preferring  that  of  "  music."  Now,  it  need 
scarcely  be  remarked  that  the  terms  are  by  no  means  synonymous.  Praise,  like 
prayer,  may  be  "  uttered  or  unexpressed,"  and,  in  the  light  of  revelation,  we  may 
conclude  that  music,  apart  from  the  heart-worship,  cannot  be  acceptable  to  God, 
however  artistically  offered.  And  this  brings  us  face  to  face  with  the  question  as 
to  whether  the  high  ideal  in  church  music  set  before  us  here  is  practically  attain- 
able ;  and  if  attainable,  is  it  desirable  ]  It  may  be  taken  for  granted,  that  upon 
every  Christian  congregation  rests  the  obligation  to  praise  the  Lord  "  skilfully." 
But  considering  the  component  and  ever-varying  parts  of  an  ordinary  congrega- 
tion— consisting  of  young  and  old,  cultured  and  uncultured,  those  who  are  joyful 
and  others  who  are  sad — can  more  be  expected  than  that  an  honest  and  persistent 
effort  be  made  to  harmonise  generally,  voices  and  expressed  emotions  so  varied  % 
This,  we  think,  is  all  that  in  the  light  of  revelation  seems  to  be  obligatory.  Not 
only  so,  but  we  think  that  the  introduction  of  so-called  "art"  in  public  worship 
is  not  only  unwarranted  by  Scripture,  but  likely,  so  far  from  aiding  devotion, 
seriously  to  interfere  with  it.  "The  worship  of  God,"  says  Owen,  "is,  or  ought 
to  be,  the  same  at  all  times,  in  all  places  and  amongst  all  people,  in  all  nations ; 
and  the  order  of  it  is  fixed  and  determined  in  all  particulars  that  belong  to  it." 
He  adds,  "  And  let  not  man  pretend  the  contrary  until  he  can  give  an  instance 
of  any  such  defect  in  the  institutions  of  Christ,  as  that  the  worship  of  God  can- 
not be  carried  on  without  an  addition  of  something  of  their  own  for  the  supply 
thereof." 

Mr.  Curwen's  taste,  however,  is  discriminating,  and  he  gives  us  clearly  to 
understand  that  the  improvement  of  congregational  singing  is  what  he  mainly 
seeks.  His  testimony  to  the  very  general  desire  for  vocal  praise  throughout  the 
country  is  of  great  importance.  "  That  the  singing  should  be  congregational,"  he 
says,  "  is  universally  conceded.  Wherever  I  speak  on  this  subject,  in  England 
or  elsewhere,  among  Churchmen  or  Nonconformists,  I  find  a  hearty  and  even 
enthusiastic  assent  to  my  assertion  that  in  Divine  worship  the  people  ought  them- 
selves to  sing."  Choirs  and  organs  he  considers  but  as  means  to  an  end ;  that 
end  being  the  best  possible  congregational  singing.  Good  congregational  singing 
he  regards  as  far  more  likely  to  attract  people  to  church  than  "  musical  perform- 
ances." But  it  seems  congregational  singing  is  "difficult  to  get,  and  almost  as 
difficult  to  keep  when  got,"  and  so  far  from  the  organ  necessarily  improving  the 
singing,  he  owns  that  it  has  often  the  opposite  effect,  and  that  the  opposition  of 
many  to  the  introduction  of  the  organ  is  quite  reasonable,  as  they  would  rather 
bear  the  ills  they  have  than  fly  to  others  that  they  know  not  of !  This  is  a  frank 
and  valuable  testimony.  Mr.  Curwen  permits  us  to  look  behind  the  scenes,  and 
we  acknowledge  to  have  got  from  him  a  clearer  idea  than  we  had  before,  of  the 
immense  labour  required  in  order  that  "  a  full  and  harmonious  offering  of  praise 
be  maintained." 

The  effect  of  Mr.  Curwen's  paper  upon  my  own  mind  has  been  to  confirm  my 
preference  for  unaided,  that  is  unaccompanied,  congregational  singing.  I  could 
not  but  appreciate  his  keen  and  intelligent  interest  in  the  subject  he  discusses, 
and  my  sympathies  go  with  him  in  a  desire  for  increased  and  sustained  improve- 
ment in  the  singing.  But  I  stop  far  short  of  his  ideal  of  excellence.  As  I  have 
said,  I  believe  it  to  be  neither  desirable  nor  attainable ;  and  not  desirable  because 
of  the  injurious  influence  it  would  have  on  congregational  devotion.  Had  he 
given  more  prominence  to  the  theology  of  the  question,  I  am  convinced  he  would 
have  done  more  justice  to  it.  There  are  some  who  would  make  us  believe  that 
"  the  Church  music  question  "  is  beyond  discussion — that  it  is  foreclosed.  Mr. 
Curwen  has  come  too  much  into  contact  with  church  life  to  share  this  conceit. 
He  writes  as  one  who  knows  that  it  is  still  a  living,  and  with  very  many,  a  most 
important  question,  though,  as  we  have  seen,  he  regards  the  discussion  not  so 
much  as  it  affects  "worship-praise"  as  "worship-music." 

M.  S.  Tait. 

Glasgow. 


